Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Sovereignty's only for the in-crowd

From the article (link in post title):
Should Senators violate their oath of office — which obliges them to "support and defend the Constitution" — by enacting S. 147, they will be inviting an even greater problem down the road. Other self-designating communities can be expected to demand recognition of their rights to have their own government and sovereign laws. These might include Chicanos, Cajuns, Amish and Puerto Ricans.

Horrors!

Hmm...Seems he's admitting through the back door that such rights exist...

(The article's author,) Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

Oh. That explains a lot.

Thanks to the ever-diligent NuclearDruid at The Claire Files for the original link.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

A Mayor turned Outlaw

Wow, here’s what I’ve been hoping to see. People waking up after Hurricane Katrina’s devastation to the useless, high-handed, head-tripping, slow-as-the-Mississippi, control-freakish nature of the Fedbeast…

And it’s Mayor Ben Morris of Slidell, Louisiana, no less! Telling FEMA that they’d “better bring weapons” if they try again to come take his storm-stricken town’s generators, or tell them where they're "allowed" to place them.

Note that the link points to an MP3 file. Thanks to Alton Speers over at the shiny new Claire Files Forums for the link.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

If Bill Clinton can do it, why can’t we?

Food for Outlaw thought, from an anonymously circulating email I recently received (thank you, Thunder!), no author or web link provided:
I have this really, really bad memory problem. It gets worse under stress. I also have this metaphysical dilemma thing.
I know the guy next door. I guess. Actually I don't know him. I've called him Joe, but it wouldn't be right for me to say to anyone official that his name is Joe, because I've never checked his ID, so I don't really know, and even if I had checked his ID, I still wouldn't _know_, would I? He's always been a nice fellow, and I wouldn't want to cause him undeserved harm by leaping to conclusions about him.

Does he have a wife? I don't know. I may have seen a woman around his place, but I couldn't leap to the conclusion that she is his wife. I might assume so out of courtesy to them, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone official that he is Joe or that he has a wife, because I really don't know. Most of what I _think_ I know, and which serves quite well for inviting each other to our barbeques and for borrowing small tools, is stuff I don't actually _know_ and don't care about one way or another. And that affects my memory when people ask questions about him.

Did I see those two young men snatch a purse from that lady over there? Yes. Can I describe them? Yes. Did I notice what they were wearing and in which direction they ran? Yes. Do I know anything about Joe? Nope. Does he have a wife? I have no idea. What does he do for a living? Gosh, I have no idea.

The law requires you to give up information you have when asked by a law enforcement officer investigating a crime. The law does not and cannot require you to notice things or to have a good memory. If your memory gets worse as the things being investigated stray farther and farther from common law crimes and into the realm of "bureaucrime" and thought crime, well, that's just too fucking bad.

Heheheh. “I just can’t recall.” Remember how many times Slick Willie used that line? A Rhodes Scholar whose much-vaunted head for facts (and figures? ouch! bad, bad pun!) just didn’t seem to function in certain circumstances…uh huh…

For you Agitators, the message goes on to explore within-the-system options:
I'd make a really bad juror, too. It's not a memory thing there, it's more of a comprehension thing. I just have trouble seeing guilt if the law itself is bogus. Not guilty. What? Are you crazy? They had him dead to rights laundering money! Sorry, I just can't believe the evidence. It just doesn't add up for me. Explain why not! Sorry, I can't. It just doesn't work for me.

If more people had these problems, all the bureaucrimes and other victimless crimes would, sadly, be history overnight. The IRS would lose every single case that went to a jury, and within months the income tax would be repealed, a no-audit, no-go-to-jail sales tax (ed. note: don't count on that, friend - see Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman's in-depth debunking, The FairTax: A Trojan Horse for America?) would be in place, and most of the people working for the IRS would be looking for a new job. I would be very saddened by the rude reality of all that, but, hey, what the hell?

Will these problems that afflict me spread? You'd better hope your sorry ass they do! If they don't, we're all in for a very rough ride, and not 50 years from now, but tomorrow and next year. We're already well down the slippery slope. Personally, though, I think we're in for a shitstorm. That's because people are basically unprepared for the degree of evil that has been refined and distilled in government. They're still way too willing to spout off about things they don't even know, to presume the worst, even of their friends and acquaintances, to play full rube right into the hands of truly evil people who have _their_ act down to a science.

If large scale genocide has been going on all through the last several years in Bosnia while people on this list have been consumed in flame wars and pseudo-propeller-head duels on a scale of delicacy of the medieval mace, how much more easily can and does largely bloodless subjugation take place all around us? If people can allow Ruby Ridges and Wacos to take place without congressional offices being _filled_ every day with outraged citizenry and recall petitions being launched for every politician who even hesitates in taking a firm stand, how can we think that the gradual sapping of our liberty will evoke a response until things first get very, very bad.

There is a peaceful solution available today. At one level you don't have to have a good memory in all things to be a law-abiding and responsible citizen-unit. Just say "No, I don't remember" about things that are none of your business. At another level, you don't have to put up with bureaucrimes when you sit on a Grand Jury or a trial jury.

Just say "No." Don't argue; don't convince; just say "No" across the board to bureaucrimes. It takes 51% of the voters to win an election. It only takes 5% of the jurors to kill a bad law.

Nothing else will work. Nothing else has ever worked. If this is not done now, we will all face terrible choices and tragedies within as few as ten years.

Well, we’re going to face all that anyway, most likely. And unfortunately, there isn’t always a jury involved in a situation that cries out for common sense and true justice.

But this part of the entry wouldn’t be complete without a nod to the amazing Fully Informed Jury Association and American Jury Institute, whose executive director is one fairylike TCFwit named Iloilo Jones.